Is Obama A Hypocrite?

Okay, let's cover them one-by-one.
You,

Most expert economists have stated that the stim bill reduced the impact of the Great Recession. Strike one.

You,

Yeah, he has lied more than once, but how does that translate into removal from the presidency? This is not "treason" by any stretch of your imagination.

You,

Well, GW Bush started two wars that were not threats to the US, and even started the war in Iraq on lies. Those two wars are still on-going, and we're still paying for those two wars. What's your beef? Here again, this doesn't reach the level of removal based on what past presidents have done. Don't forget, GW Bush served two terms as president; and that's after starting two wars.

You,

You include gas prices, because you have no clue what affects gas prices. Just total ignorance on your part. The US still pays the lowest for petro, except for a couple of countries that produce their own oil/gas. Typical conservative charge against our president without understanding economics, and what influences gas prices.

You,

Here again, you talk from total ignorance. This Great Recession was the result of GW Bush, and started in December of 2007, two years before Obama took office. Trying to blame Obama for the world recession when he was only a citizen shows how stupid you are! As for the unemployment rate, it started to tank in 2008 when GW Bush was president. Your understanding of trends on jobs caused by the Great Recession only proves your ignorance; nothing more.

You,

You haven't been keeping up with all the news about Afghanistan. Do a Google search on what the generals and Gates have been saying about this war that GW Bush started.

You,

You're now throwing out problems that existed since long before Obama became president, and many presidents before him faced this problem. You have no common sense.

You,

If you understood how this all transpired, you wouldn't be blaming Obama for this problem. Who created this problem to begin with? Yea, it was GW Bush who created Gitmo in the first place. Your ignorance is total.

Just like most conservatives. Spit out bull **** enough times, and more conservatives believe as you do.

There's no cure for stupid.

Just as he is making the charge expecting it will be accepted, you do the same of him, calling him stupid and all without more proof than he himself provides... I will grant that your case is easier proved than his since the Presidents of America are a lesson in mediocrity; but without out drawing all the parts of his scrambled evidence of ineptitude together your charge is simply adhomenim... Try not to alienate those idiots... They have arms and are looking for an excuse..

Well, if you can call them "idiots," that too is an ad hominem. At least I take the effort to explain why they are idiots.

If the lefties on A2K didn't use ad hominem they would have nothing to say

First one. Ball. Don't expect an answer when you edit my post. I am more than qualified to reply to your post in one complete thought. That is not how debate works. You never stop someone when they are talking and then reply when they are in mid thought. Only on the internet. You lost.

Your only reply is your first reply with me. Therefore, "most experts say" means nothing. What are you talking about "preventing a great depression.? That's like saying Obama stopped an invasion from Mars. Might as well. It's fantasy land crap. You don't know if anything was prevented. All you know is what you've heard from your favorite talking head. We are where we are. I live in reality. You should try it. If you expect a reply to a post then you will have to reply like I just did. Thanks and have a good day,

You're talking about me, and not the list you made. Just because you are ignorant about what the expert economists has said about Obama's stim bill doesn't mean they don't exist. FYI, it's a very simple Google search - if you bother to look. There's been many reports about this very issue in the media. Not my problem that you don't read.

The following is from About.com. Refute it if you can - from any credible source.

Is "MediaMatters" a reliable source?

It's not whether Media Matters is reliable or not; it depends on what the subject is, and what they are saying about it. I will determine what they say is factual or not. I'm skeptical until I can show that what they say is true and factual.

So, what does Media Matter say about the stem bill?

I say again, Bork Obunga is not bright enough to be a hypocrite.

For instance, real hypocrites have to be able to talk without teleprompters.

Even in the Bible, it says:



It doesn't say:


Think about it...

What do you mean by "I will determine what is factual or not". Are there certain publications or web sites that qualify and some that don't? I agree with you that the issue is the topic. At least we're getting somewhere on that.

So now how about a name? Give me one of these economical experts.

Don't you understand simple English? You post what Media Matter said about the stem bill, and I'll determine whether what they say is factual or not.

Simple English - if you understand the language.

Here's a fact for ya. The stimulus did not produce any jobs. A lot went to unions as a payback to keep their jobs and pensions.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2176518/posts

Ben Stein? ROFLMAO

Here's how the stem bill was spent.

Here's some detail to the $275 billion for job creation. Invest in Science Research and Technology
$10 billion for science facilities.
$4 billion to increase broadband infrastructure.
$4 billion for physics and science research.

Help Small Businesses
$54 billion to help small businesses through a variety of tax incentives and write-offs.

Ben Stein's complaint is that half of it went to unions? He just made a declaration that half went to unions. Where's the proof of that? And what is bad about unions?

So, here's two questions for you; a) where's the proof that half of the stem bill went to unions, and b) what is bad about unions?

Links please.

Sure. http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulus.htm

How much was the stimulus? There seems to be a lot of money missing from your experts analysis. Doesn't add up. I also noticed you called it "George Bush's recession". Do you honestly believe Bush was solely responsible for the recession that is still going on despite the billions spent on job creation? Now that you've brought Bush into this, I have to ask you to show us the evidence that forces you to say the recession is George Bush's. Thanks.

Here is a differnt opinion on the stimulus. I generally agree with this.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or-saved-by-the-Stimulus.html

It doesn't add up, because that information hasn't been made available in detail, but the $787 billion is the correct total as far as I know.

What's even more curious is your asking me about the detail while not questioning how Ben Stein was able to determine that half went to unions.

$288 billion went for tax cuts; that's more than one-third that the middle class benefited, and spent in the economy to help save jobs.

Your original criticism was that the stem bill didn't create jobs, but you have failed to show by any credible source that supports your position.

All your challenges are empty without any facts or evidence to support them, and you still have not answered my two questions.

You lose on all points; if half of the stem money was spent on unions, that means it saved those jobs, but there's no information on that except what Ben Stein claimed without providing where he got that info. DUH!

Now, answer my two questions, or quit asking me any more questions, because you're a loser, and a waste of time.

This is interesting. http://washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or-saved-by-the-Stimulus.html

If that money was spent to save union jobs like say then that is wrong. The bailouts for the corporations were wrong. How can you lefties bad mouth the corporations in one breath and then wink when GE pays no taxes? Hypocrite.

That much is obvious, because they are in the classical sense of the word, from the Greek as applied to Socrates: As one who holds back from politics... That is obvious because if they did as they advocate doing they would be overwhelmed with outrage or the force of law... If they could but once see the consequences of what they so easily advocate they would suffer shame or anhilation... They wish neither, but find it easy to say outrageous nonsense knowing no one will really take them seriously, and all because giving offense is their right...And much of what they repeat is spoken through a national media which is the property of all, and used against us because for those who do so that use in that fashion is considered a right... It is not a right...


It is never a right to go against the very democracy, and to attack the very people who are the life of democracy only because there is money in it, a little more money for yourself, and a lot for the rich... It is not a right... Treason never is a right... But if the right think they can claim treason as a rights, and yet in the end say they did nothing with the thought but proclaim it loudly for the benefit of the rich they will find that defense landing on unsympathetic ears...